70 comments:

I will be attending a Tea Party in Ft. Lauderdale tomorrow at Oakland Pk. Rd. and University Dr. I love the fact that they make the Libs and the media nuts. Their pitiful attempt to copy the phenomenon is laughable. It can't be copied because it was a Natural uprising. My sign? "The Constitution is not a suggestion".

They just don't get it. The Tea Partiers are real people with real ideas about the real world. The "Coffee Parties" are just an artifice designed by Dem Party schlubs to assuage the various Lefty boobs and nitwits who make up the Dem "base".

When the Party that invented "astro-turfing" can't even get three dozen stoners to show up and "stick it to the man" over a latte, then you know the fat lady has already sung.

Does it make any sense to compare this TP turnout to the turnout at the BHO thing that this TP turnout was meant to counter?

The coffee thing (based on what I heard from a "leader" who I saw jabbering on Cspan) was occurring at hundreds of locations around the country, completely separate from the TP folks. But, the TP folks were explicitly countering the BHO thing.

How about if we tell the Coffee Party members that if Obamacare passes they will have to give up their coffee because caffeine is bad for their health and now that the government is paying for their healthcare ...

They are liberals. They talk a lot and then let the govmint do it. How many liberals are working with the poor in Africa or the earthquake victims in Haiti? And how many of the dreaded conservative evangelicals.

Sad thing is, the libs have probably got it right. They don't need to show up. An avalanche of bribes and threats by the President, Pelosi and Reid are going to result in passage of the bill.

Penny's description reminds me of the end of the video at this link. To get the full effect you need to put your in your full name. But, if you're paranoid about some sort of evil surveillance scheme, you should at least use your first name and a fake last name.

It's a good thing that it was closed because they couldn't handle the even a tiny fraction of the 100,000 folks who previously showed up to see him in St. Louis.

BTW, speaking of using attendance numbers to make assumptions about the political importance of different groups; what are we to take away from the fact that the fired-up, uber-energized, worried-about-the-end-of-the-constitution TPers couldn't draw more than 2% of BHO's campaign crowd? Obviously the appeal of the TPers is being vastly exaggerated by the lamestream media. Conservative bias?

Showing up at a demonstration, proves the level of dedication and energy a movement has. If it's large enough, it sends a direct message, but the important thing about the Tea Party is that it is mostly people who do not bother with demonstrations unless they are really motivated. Bottom line is the Tea Party is a lot of people who are very motivated and they represent an even larger number who who agree but still won't demonstrate.

Most leftist demonstrations are composed of people who demonstrate at the drop of a hat. These are people who are: 1) less dedicated to the issue and 2) less typical of the average American. Therefore they represent smaller numbers in the electorate and are themselves less motivated. This leads me to believe the Tea Party is a much more powerful and representative movement than it appears.

There are of course no such documented demographics. I'm expressing my impressions from attending a number of such demonstrations across the country from Los Angeles to D.C., including a number of Tea Party ones as well as others on the left for decades including, in recent years, those organized by code pink, ANSWER and others. There is a vast and distinct difference between the attendees at the Tea Party events. I also see (IMHO) a difference in that many people who vote democrat do not identify with those who generally demonstrate at leftist rallies, while Tea Party attendees appear to be very typical of the general center-right voter. These are personal impressions I get from first-hand experience and not from reading blogs or editorials. I have heard and read numerous critiques of the Tea Parties events and attendees by people who have never been to one. Of course that's true in the other direction as well, but I have been to both kinds and I've been both a liberal and a conservative, at different times in my life and I think I understand both. So take that for what you will.

It's a good thing that it was closed because they couldn't handle the even a tiny fraction of the 100,000 folks who previously showed up to see him in St. Louis.

BTW, speaking of using attendance numbers to make assumptions about the political importance of different groups; what are we to take away from the fact that the fired-up, uber-energized, worried-about-the-end-of-the-constitution TPers couldn't draw more than 2% of BHO's campaign crowd?

That was then (2008) — this is now (2010). Obama's campaign appeal is long past. Let's see him get anything like that size and enthusiasm of crowd out to see him these days. The number who attended Obama's rally in St. Louis this week was some 400 — quite a comedown from 100,000 and far less than the Tea Party demonstration drew there.

Bottom line is the Tea Party is a lot of people who are very motivated and they represent an even larger number who who agree but still won't demonstrate.

You can get a bus full of college potheads to go to a demonstration at the drop of a hat. You can fill as many buses with teachers'-union types as you want to pay time and a half for. But usually, you can't get the Tea Party folks, people with real jobs and responsibilities, to show up for much of anything. The fact that they are drawing such crowds should scare the Democrats to the marrow of their bones.

Is there a moral to this story of recollected, little girl tea parties?

What vapid comments. The Tea Party movement of course hearkens back to the Revolutionary War's Boston Tea Party not “little girl tea parties.” And while the demonstrators there did “dress up,” it was as Red Indians rather than “somebodies' grandma's hat” — while they dumped the King's tea into Boston Harbor.

Nope. Alinsky taught that once you have staked out a position, then you must act as if no other position exists. Therefore, you cannot acknowledge that there is another side to the story or you ruin your whole narrative.

That's where Obama/Pelosi/Reid get the whole "Party of No" meme from: They must act as if Republicans have never put forward their own proposals because otherwise their false choice of "It's our way or nothing at all" falls completely apart.

So it is with 1jpb and his attack on evangelicals. In his world, evangelicals are evil; therefore, the millions they serve around the world (including in our own inner cities and rural areas) through their humanitarian missions DO NOT EXIST.

Any argument that they DO, in fact, exist can only be the product of extreme right-wing racist Nazi propaganda distributed by evil corporations who are looking to grind up babies to make oil.

But usually, you can't get the Tea Party folks, people with real jobs and responsibilities, to show up for much of anything. The fact that they are drawing such crowds should scare the Democrats to the marrow of their bones.

That certainly describes the people I know who have been to Tea Party rallies. With few exceptions it is the first protest rally they've ever been to.

None, none whatsoever. There's so little chance that this "movement" will go anywhere that it's best just to ignore them. What derogatory name should we call a movement that is completely derivative, reactionary, and without any substantive ideas? The "Tea Party" is so named because it has an historical antecedent and a political philosophy derived from the actual event. The "Coffee Party" mocks itself.

What you won't hear from almost anyone else is that America is being QPed (I'll let you figure that out). On one very, very important and fundamental issue, the Dems, the GOP leadership, the Coffee Party, and the Tea Party are all aligned against the interests of the U.S.

We need a party that represents U.S. interests instead of the interests of just a few (no matter how much TP likes to pretend they're grassroots). What's especially ironic is that the issue in question raises the taxes on the TPers and reduces their power. It's also an issue that the Beltway is extremely vulnerable on.

Yet, they aren't using it because - to be frank - almost all their adherents are absolute idiots, and the ones who aren't are corrupt or glassy-eyed libertarian lunatics.